Facilitating Agents of Change
I am writing this article as I conclude a training project I worked on with Atlas Research for the Department of Veteran Affairs. The goal was to train employees of the VA in employment services, encouraging them (Community Employment Coordinators-CEC) also to become agents of Change, April 2015, Atlas Research, “CEC Change Agent Guideline.” Having dedicating my professional life to the subject, I was over joyed at being able to address it directly.
I have learned through my strength based coaching practice, that an employee’s investment in their work is critical to their job performance. Investment requires that an individual be aware of their values and how their personal vision and mission align with their organization’s and with their job description. I found that by initially addressing these issues, change and subsequent related growth became much more likely (98% retention 2012 Aspect Consulting Inc. Making Change project). The plan that was developed with each CEC, addressed what they knew about their immediate community, how that could expand and also what they knew and could expand about themselves.
“The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.” Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point. (from the Change Agent Guideline paper by Amy)
As I worked with the CECs, our conversations focused not only on what was to change, but on what it would take of them personally to be an Agent of Change. As a result, they spoke of vulnerabilities and difficulties they had within their cultures. These issues had effected their confidence and therefore, their willingness to be proactive and effect change (maybe this had been an attitude they had for quite some time in various environments). They were often afraid of appearing forceful (powerful?) or being met with force and disciplinary action for presenting with any authority. It is important to note that many hierarchical establishments still institute force, or a transactional form of leadership (see Leadership by James M Burns) as a way of sustaining current order or attempting behavior change for those seen outside of the status quo of the organization. Yet as we know, force and transactional leadership actually have a negative correlation with intrinsic behavior change (self-motivation and control). (Motivational Interviewing, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/70/5/369/ ). Even in its ineffectiveness toward these ends, force, (discipline, punishment, “beholden” trade) remains a societal default for leading behavior control, or change, in many organizations. Because we were encouraging these CEC’s to be agents of change, it was important to recognize and work with this reality. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216194/)
Change for individuals is difficult, we all have experienced this personally as human beings, so it follows that change for organizations would be compounded by the many human beings that it contains. To be an agent of change for an organization is a task that requires not only a certain skill level but a level of confidence and an ability to communicate clearly and effectively.
Below I highlight two stories when coaching was used to cultivate an employees ability to become an agent of change.
“Patient yet persistent – Change does not happen overnight and most people need to experience something before they really understand that there is an importance to the change.”
- The following is about a CEC who was a very creative type, if not eccentric and because of it, I felt interesting, but this was not so much the case with her colleagues.
The opening for the CEC position prior to being filled, had been “determined” by a partnering unit to be disposable. They then continued with the attitude of not understanding why it had been filled at all. The communication to the CEC from the partnering unit, was witnessed to be disrespectful if not undermining, to her being a new employee to the VA, as well as to the position. The program manager was also new. After the group meeting to discuss the role of the new CEC position that concluded my initial visit, the manager disclosed to myself and the CEC that the environment was hostile and that she planned on addressing this slowly but deliberately. We continued our discussion that day around leadership and change at that informal post meeting and I hoped, along with the CEC, that change would begin sooner than later.
Over the months it became evident that “scapegoating” and what I felt in fact was bullying, continued toward this CEC. I was made aware of a letter presented for the CEC’s file. That letter was filled with personal attacks that, in my opinion, did not seem to be relevant to the job she was doing but to her personality ex: singing in her office. It appeared that the manager had unfortunately been influenced by a person of so said “political power” within the team. I worked intensively with the CEC on her ability to diffuse conflict both internally and with dialogue between her and colleagues. We discussed the real possibility of this environment not being a match for her if this continued even though she had a great deal of passion for the position—environment. Her health and well-being as that of any employee were an important consideration. I coached the CEC through the difficulty of the situation, helping her to frame how to view it, and to determine what the desired outcomes were for her, and how best to proceed given the feedback she presently had.
As I continued to follow up with her, the situation appeared to be improving. At my revisit, the manager spoke candidly to myself and the CEC that she had made mistakes. She said that as she spent time in conversation with the CEC, she could see that she had been negatively influenced by other employees. She apologized and accepted responsibility for that which she was responsible for. It became evident that the working relationship was now right to bring about more change because it already had. In this case, the CECs personal style was a catalyst to address issues effecting progress. With coaching, she was able to retain dignity, gain confidence and use effective communication skills. Everyone benefited. Potential costly issues were not completely diverted, but many were, such as entirely retraining a new CEC, dealing with grievance issues, absenteeism, health issues, or worse. This type of empowerment directly affected the ability to facilitate change.
The health of a department, organization and employee does impact services to those we have committed to serve. That health is worth our address.
Asks tough questions – It would be easy for someone to come in and dictate how things should be, but again that is someone else’s solution. Keep asking questions to help people think, don’t alleviate that by telling them what to do.
- This next employee that I will address had a long relationship with the VA although he was new to the specific CEC position, He was experiencing much success in his position—Veterans were becoming employed and his team for the most part, was working well together. However, there was a relationship with a program manager that was one of disregard and disrespect toward team work with the CEC and the mission of the position. The CEC had said to me that it wasn’t an issue for him, but from what I witnessed, I believe this “rift” would ultimately effect the potential outcomes for the Veterans they were to serve. This CEC felt better to avoid the issue but when I attended a meeting and experienced the disrespect and posturing first hand, I addressed the situation by asking questions, reframing and summarizing, which exposed the unwillingness of this manager to participate with the CEC in any way. At the closing interview of my initial visit, the Chiefs of the significant units were in attendance. I wanted to model for the CEC how dissonant issues could be brought up in a respectful and effective way through the use of respectful questions. At conclusion, the Chiefs were committed to address the situation as a team. As I continued my follow up and encouragement with the CEC, it appeared that the relationship between him and the manager were progressing.
At revisit, I presented the Work Talk and the Stages of Change workshop. Several Chiefs as well as the CEC and the manager were present for the post presentation discussions. Afterward, we openly spoke about the previous issues and the discussion focused around the changes that everyone had made after the initial visit. I could see that change had been made, it really wasn’t dependent on the discussion– it was evident. This CEC believed that he was doing the tasks of the job and that was what mattered. In my opinion, yes, the job was being done, but was more change possible? The issue could have remained avoided because the basic job was being done, but how much energy would have actually been diverted to this “elephant in the middle of the room?” Coaching helped improve the potential for excellence for the units, the personnel involved and ultimately the whole of this VA and ultimately its service to their Veterans.
Interpersonal and communication problems inhibit excellence which in turn, limits change and impacts outcomes.
In my experience, interpersonal and communication issues are not typically followed up on once addressed in organizations, if they are addressed at all. More often these issues are viewed as a necessary tolerated annoyance, too costly to impact, too difficult to measure and if need be… disciplinary action or grievance procedures can always be instituted to deal with any such problems. However regarded, these organizational health issues do effect the bottom line in time, money and outcome if left to fester and contaminate the environment.
When an employee such as a CEC is empowered and confident, being consciously invested, they can accomplish great things for those they serve. In example– the success of the empowered CEC that covers the entire state of Montana, helping to inspire change and provide services and employment for Veterans across very rural territory. He too had to address his own issues of intimidation and gain support to lead his vision into reality. Then there is the CEC that negotiated with Ford Motor Company to hire 60 Veterans, one third of those having felony histories, negotiating training programs for train to hire. He is still working to have his team understand that their involvement is critical and without them, he can only do so much. I believe the potential for loss of ground here is obvious. And then there is the CEC who stayed the course, not leaving when the environment was personally quite painful… unfortunately many of us are no stranger to the fact that bullying and aggressive control can lead to costly violence. Transactional leadership that has been accepted as part of traditional leadership uses similar tactics. However, many leaders are not aware of having made a conscious decision about using this type of leadership, as I stated, it is a cultural default. Change needs to start somewhere, with someone and with our CEC training project, it started with many of them and their trainers.
Acquired interpersonal skills are invaluable to those served. It not only makes good sense to provide support to these ends, it helps perpetuate empowerment, set good examples and cease contribution to negative contagion that makes an environment unwell. Many of those I trained, as well as their managers asked if I would still be available for ongoing coaching. As stated in the Heroic Journey model by Joseph Campbell; any journey of change needs mentorship (The Power of Myth Bill Moyer 1988) I too have seen the benefit of support in securing long term change, especially when someone is taking on the effort of leading that change. See below and excerpt from a pre-follow up visit evaluation…
“Is there anything else that you feel is important for the trainer and consultant to know?”
“From observation I think David(CEC) has really benefited from your feedback and guidance as he has established and built this program. It has been a good support for him. I would recommend that the VA consider some type of bi-monthly or quarterly follow-up to ensure continuity of programming with the CEC staff and to maintain the integrity of the program and the programs purpose within the VA Homeless programs.”
Support is critical. Having someone familiar with the language of change who serves as example of the change to be made, who actively, consistently uses the language of change and is not subject to the lure of prevailing patterns is fundamental to creating and sustaining change. I do believe a coaching program would protect the investment in change any organization makes. I have thought for a while that leadership, transformation and communication coaching would be an excellent option to support employee’s work health and personal leadership through existing Employee Assistance Programs, it is a change worth making.
Mary Brandon
Mary
Mary